KU NANDINI BAMANIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 24-12-1997 (Annexure P-15) whereby the State Government in exercise of its appellate power under Rule 32-A of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 has set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 01-10-1994 granting quarry lease to the petitioner for removal of sand.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease for removal of sand from Khasra No. 126 of Village Raipur in the District of Hoshangabad, having an area of 12 hectares. In the application, petitioner claimed herself to be an educated unemployed. Application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease was processed by the Collector and by Communication dated 27-07-1994 (Annexure P-2), it recommended for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner; stating therein that the same shall be in public interest. He further pointed out that prior approval of the State Government or Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') shall not be necessary as the area applied by the petitioner is beyond the, radius of 5 Kms. from the area of the Corporation. It seems that the Commissioner had also made correspondence with the State Government in relation to the request made by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease to her on 24-08-1984. In response thereto, the State Government by its letter dated 07-09-1994 (Annexure P-16) communicated to the Commissioner that the area applied for by the petitioner is beyond 22 Kms. of the area of Corporation, hence he may proceed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was considered by the Commissioner and by order dated 01-10-1994 (Annexure P-4), petitioner was granted quarry lease.

(3.) WHILE deciding to grant the quarry lease to the petitioner, Commissioner took into consideration the claim of petitioner that she is an educated unemployed and belongs to other backward class and her family lives below poverty line. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, petitioner was asked to complete the formalities for execution of the lease deed by letter dated 10-10-1994 (Annexure P-5 ).